Talk:Supernatural

How does supernatural differ from paranormal?

This article could benefit from an outline of how the word "supernatural" differs from "paranormal". It could also point out that when psychologists come across unexplained phenomena, they call it "paranormal", when theologians come across unexplained phenomena, they call it supernatural. Vorbee (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I was just going to say this myself. The articles on both Supernatural and Paranormal make similar points and use similar definitions, notably that events and phenomena so described are not susceptible to explanation in the light of current scientific knowledge. The Supernatural article even uses the word 'paranormal', without hyperlinking it incidentally. Unless someone can make a clear distinction between the two, it might be better to merge them, since if an intelligent, educated person can't give a pair of distinct and comprehensible definitions, they're effectively the same. I don't accept the contention earlier in this thread that 'supernatural' has any specific reference to Biblical or other events within the purview of Christianity. I'd never heard that claim before, in fact. I don't have the background to draw up definitions, because to me they're the same, but over to someone more expert. Chrismorey (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The main difference is that supernatural usually entails religious or divine significance. Whereas paranormal does not. Aliens, ghosts, abductions, orbs, monsters, magic, and mainly all science fiction are all non-religious things in general and these are paranormal. Think Ghostbusters and Tales of the Crypt or Twilight Zone. The moment you talk about miracles or mythology they are get into the spiritual and religious. Supernatural emerged from theology in the medieval period but it has since been narrowed to divine matters.Ramos1990 (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Revert warring of referenced lead material

Per WP:LEAD the lead is supposed to summarise the article. By deleting material, it's as plain as day that you're deliberately trying to slant the article's lead. Simply stating things like 'WP:SYNTH' is not a reason. There is no synthesis. Simply mentioning that there are skeptics is not sufficient. This is not going to happen. Note that Wikipedia has a bias, and it's not a bias that supernatural things exist, unless you can prove that scientifically. GliderMaven (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I would advise caution on this because you have already violated 3RR and have reverted 4 times. You never really spelled out your issue earlier on your edits. I specified numerous issues and even another editor stepped in and reverted you too. So its not just one editor seeing an issue.

I restored the wording to a major extent in my last edit [1] because I think some of the wording was decent and updated some for the references to be more academic. But numerous issues were there:

• For one the direct sources on James Randi are not reliable and the NY times and Rolling Stone article is not enough to show that it is notable to be in the lead. Clearly it is WP:UNDUE since it was not taken seriously by many in the first place, certainly had no backing by an academic institution for its validity, and is certainly not informative of the article contents, and most importantly James Randi is not a scholar or expert on the supernatural - he is a magician. Furthermore, the challenge was for people who claimed to have paranormal powers [2] and the official challenge rules stipulated that the participant must agree, in writing, to the conditions and criteria of their test, so this never tested the supernatural in general. It was mainly paranormal people and usually psychics.

• The WP:SYN is in the first sentence "A supernatural manifestation or event requires a violation of physical law". The "Halman 2010" does not claim that. Most sources on the supernatural just claim that is is not subject to the laws of nature, not that it must violate anything. Furhtermore, the section on the history of the supernatural clearly shows that the supernatural is not so cut and dry, but complex.

• The claim "Historically, supernatural powers have been invoked to explain phenomena as diverse as lightning, seasons, and the human senses, which today are understood scientifically." is also not sourced so it is WP:OR.

• The claim "Supporters of supernatural explanations believe that past, present, and future complexities and mysteries of the universe cannot be explained solely by naturalistic means and argue that it is reasonable to assume that a non-natural entity or entities resolve the unexplained." has been uncited since 2019. Its WP:OR. So that has to be removed.

• Other stuff I added were improvements such as the history of the term, italics on the Latin. Removing questionable sources like "Aeon" (a weird digital magazine) and "Bad Astronomy" blog (which does not work actually) so it has to be removed. Victor Stenger's book is about God, not so much the supernatural broadly either so that whole sentence looks like WP:SYN too.

I have not violated 3RR. And have not used a third revert.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Definitions and Examples of supernatural phenomenon

The definition of supernatural given: "The supernatural encompasses supposed phenomena or entities that are not subject to the laws of nature". Meanwhile, "The laws of nature" article claims that the ""Laws of nature" or "Scientific laws" or "laws of science" are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.". Therefore, Dark-matter and dark energy, without a definitive in-depth known experimental and theoretical explanation, would also be considered supernatural, because, as of yet, it is not subject to the known laws of nature, because their true state of affairs is not contained within the currently observed and theoretically explained laws of nature. At many points in history, "Lightning" and "MRI's" would have also been considered supernatural because they extend beyond the knowledge of the previous times, should they be considered supernatural as-well?. Perhaps you would like to add the unexplained phenomenon of dark matter and dark energy to the list of supernatural states, or change the definition of supernatural to explicitly that which permanently extends beyond scientific theorization.(If that is consistent with it's true usage) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.108.198 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources saying that Dark matter is considered supernatural or any of the other things you mentioned? A journal or research article? If you do, then that can be reviewed. Otherwise, none of what you have written can be placed on the article itself. Wikipedia runs on what reliable source state, not what an anonymous wikipedia editor states.Ramos1990 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I cited the definitions given by the Wikipedia article itself, and the linked article on the "Laws of science", of which was used in the initial definition used in the "Supernatural" article. I then used deductive reasoning from the premises given to conclude that "lightning" and "Mri"s would have been considered "Supernatural" in previous times before scientific explanations where given. While "Dark matter" and "Dark energy" of which both might eventually bear some empirically supported explanation, until that occurs, then the phenomenon is implied(By the definitions of those Wikipedia articles) to be defined as "Supernatural". I assume that those articles have good sources, why are we not allowed to deduce further from established reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.108.198 (talk) 04:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

That violates wikipedia policy. We are not allowed to do original research or synthesize from any sources - see the policies WP:OR or WP:SYN. You are an anonymous editor as am I. Neither one of us are experts on this. Reliable sources on the other hand are written by experts, published by peer review, and are WP:VERIFY on these topics and as such their views are the only valid ones that can be used on wikipeida per the policy. If you have reliable sources from research journals or other academic publications discussing your points then there may be something to discuss. If it were not for these policies there would be infinite debates on every article because every editor has a different opinion on each topic.

So the best way to handle this is with reliable sources. Do you have any from say a journal or textbook or from a historian of science?Ramos1990 (talk) 04:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you, I was unaware of that policy. I shall scan the literature for sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.108.198 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing. Best of luck to you. There may be something around the lines you mentioned in the literature. Philosophical / Theological sources are probably good place to start as they make such points about naturalism/supernaturalism distinctions.Ramos1990 (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)